About your Search

20121101
20121130
SHOW
Hannity 14
Cavuto 12
( more )
STATION
CSPAN 70
CNNW 63
MSNBCW 60
FBC 55
CNBC 53
CSPAN2 49
FOXNEWS 38
CNN 36
MSNBC 30
KQED (PBS) 14
CURRENT 11
WETA 10
KRCB (PBS) 9
KNTV (NBC) 8
KPIX (CBS) 7
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 611
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 611 (some duplicates have been removed)
after the simpson-bowles plan. >> thank you. it is great to have you here. we have had people for the last 24 hours giving their opinions on the fiscal cliff and the fiscal cliff negotiations and what should happen. we are expecting you now to tell us exactly what is happening. >> listen, i think we all need to accomplish two things as we approach the fiscal cliff. one, do everything we can to avoid it both in terms of the sequester peace and also the tax peace. then create a structure where we can deal with the big issues, the big fiscal challenges over the next six to nine months. it will be very useful if we can least agree to a framework structure. one is to make sure we can accelerate in what has been a slow recovery. at the same time, act now to put our long term deficit on a sustainable downward path. act now on both. by now i mean first avoid the fiscal cliff, and then get into the next six-nine months in a structured way. >> several people have pointed out the democrats have the advantage in the fiscal cliff. is there any possibility you would go over in order to forc
in a lot of gang activity. it started with harry reid appointing me to the simpson- bowles commission -- 18 members. i thought this was another commission who'd work product would be lost in history and on a dusty shelf or buried in some hard drive. it turned out to be a historic effort and a game changer -- mainly through the good work of erskine bowles and ellen simpson with hard work that was put into this by 18 members, evenly divided among house and senate democrats and republicans and six public members. 11 of us voted for the final work product. i was invited to join the gang of six to continue the conversation on simpson-bowles. it expanded to the gang of eight. the conversation has been going on for two years. that is a lot of popcorn in mark warner's office. it was a great education and effort to sit across the table from conservative senators and talk through not just the reality of the deficit but the political reality of the deficit, which we have to be more sensitive to if we are looking for an honest solution. some of my friends on the left came to visit. i recall one -- the
together and it never materializes. >> right. it is pretty high, actually. simpson-bowles is the way forward. what did simpson-bowles do? they didn't raise tax rates they eliminated deductions. all but two. interest on your home with a cap and charitable deductions and and they had lower rates at 25% corporate rate. the top individual rate was around 30%. they took that trillion dollars from eliminationing deductions and exemptions. they d they put some of it on the debt and buydown rates and did entitlement reform. that is what i think will wind up doing and we'll come together on discretionary spending cuts. i'm optimistic after hearing john boehner today that revenue would be on the table in the form of simpson-bowles. i think that's the magic way forward. and the democrats have to do entitlement reform. >> but if you look at the polls, people actually voted for, a lot of them support raising taxes on the wealthiest americans. boehner said he would not do that. he would not support it, harry reid said democrats would insist on those taxes being raised. >> all i would suggest is th
shortly after the simpson-bowles was announced, i was asked, i just barely understood, whether simpson-bowles would be usable by the congress. and i said that simpson-bowles is what will ultimately pass, and the only question is whether it is before or after the crisis. i still hold to that view. >> okay. i've raise a lot of questions. what should i have asked that he didn't? >> you are always, mr. chairman. >> strategic plan, is that what this conference is all about? all right, please thank these two. [applause] >> very well done. [inaudible conversations] >> [inaudible conversations] ladies and gentlemen, please welcome from lindbergh television, peter. peter. >> i'm honored to peterson foundation has asked me to play a role in today's session. i was joking if i can't in the roosevelt room today, over at the white house listen to the principles themselves, the president speaker boehner talk about these issues, i would rather be here because this is where so much of the same conversation is going to be taking place, and i get the opportunity today to talk to many of those principles directl
to support the framework of simpson-bowles in terms of their revenues and cut and the ratio of revenues to cuts. if you look at the simpson- bowles framework, their part -- starting point presumes the amount of revenue you would achieve if you allowed the top rate to go back to 39%, the clinton era levels. that is in their base line. then they raise revenue on top of that. as we approach this challenge, which is the long-term deficit reduction plan, my view is we should make sure we get that kind of mix of both cuts and revenue. i'm open to look at all different ways of getting there, but it's hard to achieve that result if you boxer soft and. >> what you have heard over -- boxy yourself in. >> what you have heard over the last few days from republicans is a willingness to that tax rates for high income people rise, but to do it with deductions. i saw you quoted in some paper i cannot remember the name of right now this morning saying he won both. you have a republican movement on the tax issue, but do you really have to get both deductions for high-income people and rates for high-inco
by a form with alan simpson and erskine bowles. president obama says that he and congressional leaders have urgent business to do. he mentioned taxes for the middle class and recreation. his statement came before a meeting with congressional leaders at the white house. >> i want to welcome the congressional leadership. i want to thank them for their time. we are well aware that we have important business to do. we have to make sure that taxes do not go up on middle class families. we need to make sure our economy remained strong and we create jobs. that is an addendum that both parties and independents and people throughout the country share. our challenge is to make sure that we are able to cooperate together, work together, and find common ground. make the compromises and find some consensus. i think all of us agree. we need to be focus on them and not on politics in washington. my hope is that this will be the beginning of a free fall process -- fruitful process and we are able to balance our deficit in a balanced way. we will be focusing to make sure that middle class families are able
look. >> simpson-bowles commission ended the work almost two years ago but is now the center of attention again, even running a new ad. part of a campaign funded by $36 million in corporate contributions. >> private sector recognizes that we can't continue to live beyond our means. we're borrowing about a third of everything we spend at the federal level. >> private sector is petrified that inaction on the debt could lead to a catastrophe in the economy. >> at some point, the financial markets could react. debt could be downgraded by the rating agencies. interest rates could spike. the stock market could tumble. >> we have had no real reform on the tax code. we have the fiscal cliff bearing down on us. so, why not look at simpson-bowles, although it's over two years later. >> its recommendations take on added weight as the congressional budget office released a report saying if the fiscal cliff happens, the economy will shrink half a percent. >> very, very unusual for cbo to come out and predict a recession if the fiscal cliff is not resolved. >> the simpson bowles commission
by going to simpson-bowles. i think there are going to be democrats will who want simpson-bowles. some would disagree but the question to me is if the republicans are willing to take simpson-bowles, will democrats will take it. >> can the president sell-- >> schieffer: if they do simpson-bowles, republicans in the house will have to disavow the pledge they took not to raise taxes that they all took. >> they have a little escape route-- the escape route could be tax reform. the rate doesn't change but you remove a lot of deduction so you get some revenue and it gives you a rhetorical way out to say we never raised rates. >> the challenge is, you can't do tax reform in the next two months and the tax rates expire december 31. so how do you get to a koms program-- >> you can extend it. the "washington post" pointed out you can keep tax rates exactly where they are, limit deductions to $50,000 and you would raise as much as you would raise by increasing rates on the wealthy. that would be a fair compromise, as long as it's accompanied by entitlement reform. >> schieffer: it would mean the
of that meeting? >> the business community generally likes simpson bowls, and i think there was some disappointment that the obama administration did not embrace it fully. i think what the business community would like to hear from president obama is they're going for it on the basis of something like simpson bowls, or simpson bowls on testosterone. they want to hear the word "simpson bowls" because that provides a better blueprint than anything out there right now. >> sie: are you finding that all of this uncertainty about the fiscal cliff is affecting your business. >> our business is electricity demand growth, so right now it hasn't yet. but i think the longer they go, and i mean longer in terms of weeks and days, without showing signs of having a constructive solution, i think it will impact our business virtually more with every day in a very visible way. it is unusual for me to say that because our business tends to be a very long, long-term business, but this is an immediate crisis. >> susie: why an immediate crisisor your business? are you holding back on making plans for nex
to the fiscal cliff. say yes to simpson-bowles, mr. president. i'm willing to say yes to simpson-bowles. we need more revenue in washington. we need more private sector jobs. we don't need to raise tax rates. we need to limit loopholes for the wealthy. mr. simpson, if you say yes to simpson-bowles when it comes to revenue, so will i and so will most republicans. we can get revenue without destroying jobs and both need to. no republican will vote for increased tax rates. we will insist our democratic friends reform entitlements something we've never done ask that's where the big money is at. say yes to simpson-expwoalz we'll get this behind us. >> schieffer: senator, thank you so much. and now we're going to get the other side of this picture. and joining us now, one of the architects of the president's victory, his senior campaign adviser, david axelrod, who is out in chicago. mr. axelrod, thank you so much for joining us. let me just start, on friday, the president said he was open to compromise, but he said he would not accept any approach to deficit reduction, that does not ask the wealth tow
. simpson bowles is the way forward. they didn't raise tax rates they eliminated deductions. all but two. interest on your home with a cap and charitable deductions and they had 25% corporate rates. they took that $1 trillion and they put some of it on the debt and some of it on the buy down rates. that is what i think will wind up doing and we'll come together on the spending cuts. i'm optimistic after hearing john boehner today that revenue would be on the table in the form of simpson bowles. if you look at the polls. a lot of them do support raising taxes on the wealthiest americans. he said he wouldn't support it. harry r are eid said he would insist on those taxes being raised. the gang of six. three republicans and three democrats simpson bowles rejected higher tax rates and raised revenue by eliminating deductions and creating economic growth. >> did that get you where you need to be on deficit reduction? >> absolutely it does. there is $1 trillion out there every year that we give away through the tax code. take that $1 trillion back and apply some of it through the debt and futu
it easily and quickly, you know it will happen either way -- >> but that's why it was amazing that simpson-bowles actually got 11 votes. they didn't get the supermajority needed, but they got 11 votes and that was shocking because there are so many things that so many people see as sacred. >> but the only reason to do simpson-bowles and to get rid of the deconstructiduck dedeductio and still raise marginal rates, that defeats the purpose. >> there are so many people who pay random numbers. you look at the effective tax rates, you can see -- >> rick says zero home mortgage. get rid of all the deductions and let the chips fall where they may. simple code. >> you won't have to hire a tax preparer. >> you can't spend any mothney anywhere. >> i'm proudly cheap. >> don't you get to write-off what you pay your tax preparer? >> i think you do. look, i'm good about tipping the taxi driver. but that's -- >> i saw one of the weeks that you're off because you're not coming in to the christmass party, that's the week i'm told where things change. the rates at all the places where you go, they stay low and the
percentage points on 2% of the people and we're not talking about entitlement reform or simpson bowles. we're so far from simpson-bowles at this point. >> where is your button again? >> i told you, i can't in good faith wear the button when -- you know who i don't think is rising above. i've given up. because they're thumbing their nose at me from pennsylvania avenue. >> you're not wearing yours either. >> among the voices weighing in on what heeds to be done to overt an economic stas disasterl volcker. i asked him if he thought we were going off the fiscal cliff. >> what are you going to do? you know what you're going to to on the tax side. that's simple. you have to pass a law that says the present law has to be overridden. the argument is whether it's overridden for people over 250,000. >> and what would be your position on that? >> oh, i think the simple thing to do, obviously do what the president is saying. he ran a campaign on it. if you have to act in three weeks, you're not going to revise the whole income tax code in the next three weeks. all this business about deductions may be
on a page, assign committees, deadlines and a bottom line, if this doesn't happen, simpson-bowles? >> you may be aware that there is an effort underway to do just that. lamarr defender of tennessee got out so that he could do something like this, mike bennet, a democrat from colorado. they are going to go to leaders and say, we propose that you kick the can down the field of next year. but by a certain date, we are expecting you to do certain things of the ways and means and finance. and if you don't, simpson-bowles is going to have to be tweaked a little bit more. and the former senator from new hampshire, and i think edmund delle, they are going to have to work on the group called fix the debt. simpson-bowles was theoretical. it was never really pushed out in terms of language and it didn't do enough on entitlement side. so there is a document that would actually put dates and requirements and say, by the way, if you don't do it, you will be faced with simpson-bowles plus. the problem is that is what sequester wise. >> my first job was working for the congressional quarterly and like a
to the five. i don't read that in the essay that is simpson-bowles, but ryan was in the discussions and i was not. it is either $5 trillion tax increase with a billion specified and the rest not, or $6 trillion deficit with the goals set up plus the one. $6 trillion tax increase or five. particularly since the spending cuts have been agreed to buy none of the democrats. we do know obama included -- he said nice things about simpson- bowles. there are some spending restraints. not a single one of those ideas was put into obama's budget, not one. we know he is not for any of that. when republicans offered to put them into subsequent savings from the budget control act, the democrats all objected. they are officially against every saving -- every saving discussed in simpson-bowles. so, when they spent nine months discussing simpson-bowles, a $5 trillion tax increase and hint at tax reform and spending reform, and when they finally went into the room to see what they came up with, they did not have legislative language which it of taken two weeks and then -- done by staffers. a pilot typewrit
. and i think there will be a short term compromise on the rates and then a reconvening of simpson-bowles to get the long term solutions right for this country. >> steve forbes, you sat down and you you've written -- you've tried, you've tried hard, your other book was hcapitalism will save us if we let it. why flee markets are moral. and big government isn't. you sat down and said i guess the battle will continue because this last election no one read those books, i guess. they must have, but not enough people obviously. you didn't give them away. maybe that's why. but the one thing that -- >> i offered it to the romney camp, but they didn't take it. >> we tried to get romney on here a bunch of times. don't get me started on people that ran that campaign for him. but you were looking for one silver lining when you sat down and all you could come up with was that there are some governors that might not implement the exchanges for obamacare. is that the one thing you're positive about this morning in. >> short term we'll have a lot of turbulence and no small part because the federal reserv
stick around. do not miss maria's exclusive with mr. simpson and mr. bowles coming up on the second hour of the "closing bell." see you tomorrow. >>> and it is 4:00 on wall street. 3:00 p.m. here in chicago. do you know where your money is? hi, everybody. welcome back to the "closing bell." i'm maria bartiromo coming to you from chicago today. the market lower once again on more fears over fiscal cliff and the uncertainty over tax rates in 2013. in a few minutes, i'll be speaking to the men behind the campaign to fix the country's debt, alan simpson and erskine bous. take a look at how we're settling on wall street today. the market did end off the worst levels of the session. nonetheless, we continue to see a decline. the markett down about 5% since the election. we continue to see a deterioration here. the nasdaq gave up about ten points at 2836. the s&p flat on the night, down about 2.25 points. the market closing lower once again today, adding to the losses we have been seeing since the election. is a deal in washington what investors are waiting for to get back into the game? j
to the new congress that the people are now collececting and the new congress ould take the simpson-bowles proposal which is a terrific straw maman on how toeal with the deficit in a lanced manner. ththat is the ly way to deal with the deficit, in a balanced approaoach. i would put that upor the congress and work with that proposal. >> you would be partners with a popular maryryland democrat who also has a position sitting as he does in the ranking position on the budget committee e who was involved in all those negotiations behind the scenes at the white house, saying they did not want to go as far as sisimpson-bowles. whwhat do you say to chris van hollen? >> chris is a terrific member of congress and served the country beautifully. what the one to focus on is going forward. think however simpson-bowles is a great proposal. i am very supportive of it and i think is the blueprint we ne to follow. we cannot all agree on erything. >> i have to make evenadmit iis tough waiting. >> the d deficit situation is the central issue facing this country. the only way to fix it is througugh a balance
proposals achieving $1.6 trillion in revenue which is less than the total amount of revenue that simpson-bowles has. >>neil: you would do both, a rate hike and limit deductions? >>guest: the important thing is to get a balanced deficit plan and the key is to have the revenue combined with cuts. we did $1 trillion in cuts. we sudden look for additional cuts and reform with differences on how we get there. >>neil: that is why republicans are saying it is disproportionately on the revenue side. what do you may of that? >>guest: we did $1 trillion in cuts. that was 100 percent cuts. we should accept the framework of simpson-bowles in terms of the total amount of revenue they have and the cuts. that is a bipartisan product, the result of bipartisan negotiations and our aim should be to have a plan that has that amount of total revenue and the spending cuts. but simpson-bowles numbers their starting point assumes the revenue you get from raising the rates to the higher income level. but they do not proposal to do it that way. >>neil: i just want to be clear. >>guest: there are two issues. one is havi
of when you get to the simpson-bowles commission. 18 members. i thought this was another commission whose product will be lost in history. buried in some hard drive. but it turned out to be a historic effort and the game changer. mainly through the good work of erskine bowles and alan simpson. but hard work that was put into this bite 18 members, evenly divided among house and senate, democrats and republicans. the 11th of us voted for the final work product, and then i was invited to join the gang of six to try to continue the conversation from simpson-bowles. it expanded to the gang of eight and the conversation continues as well. it's been going on for to the use. -- for two years. it was an effort to set across the table, very conservative senators, to really talk through not just the reality but the political reality of the deficit which i think we have to be more sensitive to if we are looking for an honest solution. along the way, some of my friends on the left, the progressive community came to visit. i recall one in particular. a labour leader who said what is a nice progressive
is -- simpson bowles at this time is not achievable. there's talk of a $4 trillion reduction, now we would be lucky to get to $2 trillion cut in spending. i think a representative that just spoke, i just mentioned a combination of both spending cuts and tax increases is the only way forward to avoid the fiscal cliff. although, the only thing we hear right now is tax increases for the wealthy. people making over $250,000 a year. i agree with you in the sense that, david, $250,000 in income with the cost of living in different from geographic region to geographic region does not necessarily mean a quality. with these issues upon as, it seems almost apparent there getting to a kick the can down the block again. what impact has kicked the can have on sequestration? and what impact does it have on addressing these fundamental basic issues this country faces both short-term and long-term debt? guest: first, we have to recognize reality. we have to decide what is going to happen on the so-called fiscal cliff. you're not going to get a grand bargain during a lame-duck session. there are things the
. there were 10 members [indiscernible] they voted against simpson- bowles. [indiscernible] you said -- [indiscernible] i do not see that tom has had parades thrown in his honor. [indiscernible] paul ryan goes the other way. give a dynamic of where we are right now. the final question is why is it simpson-bowles and not bowles- simpson? >> i will take the latter first. the reason is not bowles- simpson is the acronym for that is not appropriate. [laughter] simpson-bowles means son of a bitch, so it makes no difference. this council and others, it is to back these guys up who have the guts to do this. no one knows politics better than you. we have worked together for years. there is a political price. these groups will begin to circle. we will raise more bucks to be right there at their backs until our backs cave in. if the tipping point comes and we go over the cliff, the people in america who are looking around when they go to borrow money to send their kid to community college and it has gone up 2% interest rates, they will say, who did this? what a jerk allow this to happen? they
's a question of whether we'll see a big fiscal deal along the lines of simpson-bowles or kind of see it grind it out, cut a bit, nip and tuck, along the lines of what obama and boehner are dealing with. we need, just to stabilize the debt, $2 trillion in savings. that's not the craziest lift we can do. we can do savings to get things even lower though it's not clear we need to do that in the short term. then there's stimulus. we talk as if debt reduction is the only problem. for my money, if the market is willing to pay us money to keep their money safe, we're not facing a deficit problem. it's a big jobs problem. whether we're going to see infrastructure spending or an expanded tax cut in this deal is going to be a very important policy to mention going forward. >> a lot of work has already been done. as you bring up simpson-bowles, is there a possibility because the super committee didn't have the majority to move it forward, now that the president is reelected and it's affirmed, is there a possibility to revive that? >> i never quite understood. it's difficult to get simpson-bowles into sp
the simpson bowles plan called for? >> the simpson bowles plan has two revenue components. one is they assume in their baseline, in their starting point, that you will get the same amount of revenue you would achieve if you allowed the top rate to go back to clinton era levels, a little over 39%. on top of that, they generate about a trillion dollars through tax reform. so what we've said is if you want to hit the deficit reduction targets of simpson bowles, you need to be able to get the amount of revenue that's assumed in their deficit numbers. and that is much closer to the president's proposal of 1.6 trillion. in fact, the president's $1.6 trillion revenue is less than the total amount of revenue that simpson bowles assumes as part of their package. and the president achieves that through a combination of having the rate go up, but also through a tax reform proposal. his proposal, the president's, would limit the value of deductions for high income earners to 28%. >> let's talk about the tax hike that may be in play at this point. do you think that president obama received a mandate from
discussion from. you know, those of us who have worked on this for a long time, the simpson/bowles plan, which has gained a lot of attention, even our gang of six efforts, which we think improved upon the plan. we started with the rates going back up, you use that baseline and then you work down. you can then use some of these tax reform ideas to bring the rates back down, but you basically, we need, you know, on a ten year basis, more than $1 trillion of net new revenue as we think about some of the additional cuts we're going to have to make and some of the reforms to the entitlement programs. i agree with the president, let's go ahead and bring the rates back up, but then like simpson/bowles, we can use a tax reform effort, whether it is capping tax expenditures or actually going through in a more thorough way which might be flattening the actual tax code and eliminating some of the expenditures that may no longer be necessary. >> as you say semantics, this is a semantics conversation, right? because simpson/bowles says i'm going to cut the overall rate. so rates actually went down.
. it started with harry reid and the simpson-bowles commission. i thought this was another commission where the work would be buried on some hard drive, but it turned out to be a historic effort and a game changer. mainly through the good work of erskine bowles and alan simpson, but hard work was put into this by 18 members, evenly divided between house and senate, democrat and republican. we voted for the final work product. then i was invited to join the gang of 6 to try to continue the conversation and that expanded to the gang of 8. has been going on for two years. that's awful lot of popcorn in mark warner's office, but it was a great indication -- education and in really talking through not just the reality of the deficit but the political reality of the deficit, which we have to be more sensitive to if we're looking for a solution. all all the way, some of my friends on the left came to visit. i recall one in particular, a labor leader who said, "what is a nice progress of like you doing in a place like this? why are you hanging with these people? you know they are up to no good ." i
, i will talk to allen simpson and erskine bowles in an interview you cannot afford to miss. hope you join us 4:00 p.m. eastern. the co-founders of the fix the debt campaign, which many corporate leaders are backing. they'll tell us how they think washington can come together and reach a deal, bill. >> sure would be great to figure that out. maria, looking forward to that. i'm bill griffeth here at the new york stock exchange. markets continue to feel the sting of the uncertainty surrounding the fiscal cliff crisis. look at the dow, for example. it can't decide whether to go higher or lower today. it's been zigging and zaging all session today. down 42 points. that's about the midpoint of the range. the nasdaq is down 11 points, about 1/3 of a percent. the s&p 500 index also trading lower, down 3 1/3 points. some long-time traders may say the first and final hours of the trading day are the most important. since the market highs back on september 14th at the time that qe-3 was announced by the fed, the s&p 500 has suffered the biggest percentage declines in the final hour. this chart
-sign committees, deadlines, this doesn't happen, simpson-bowles -- they can get ugly. >> you may be aware that there is an effort underway to do just that. lamarr xander got out so that he could do something just like this, he is working with the democrat from colorado with the least the knowledge of mitch mcconnell and chuck schumer and probably harry reid, too. they are going to go to the leaders and say that we propose that you kick the can down the road of next year. but by certain dates, we are expecting you to do certain things of the ways and means and finance, and if you don't, simpson-bowles -- simpson-bowles is going to have to be tweaked a little bit. and a former senator from new hampshire, and i think edmund delle, they are working on a group called fix the debt. what they are doing is -- simpson-bowles was theoretical. it really never was flushed out in terms of language, and did not do enough in the entitlement side. so there is a document that would actually put dates in requirements and say, by the way, you're going to be faced with simpson-bowles plus. the problem is tha
deduction down from 1 million to half a million dollars. >> bowles-simpson. >> but here's what i want to know, what is the immediate economic impact of that? >> less than the cliff. >> definitely less than the cliff but -- >> here's my issue on that. >> if you look at what will happen in housing and things like that. >> i believe that boehner's argument that it at least half of the top income tax earners are small businesses and small business confidence is at recessionary levels measured by the nfib. if you keep that tax bracket the same and limit the mortgage interest deduction that doesn't matter to small businesses. you've removed the uncertainty, you're at a reasonable level, you probably get a serious bounce in small business confidence and hiring that more than offsets. >> i think the republicans could go along with that because they want tax simplification, they want a flatter code. >> boehner used the term "rise above." he's with us. he used the term. >> he's come on the air wearing a pin. >> the other team is using the term "forward" that they're leaning i guess, i don't kno
problems. i really go back to simpson/bowl simpson/bowles. i think they had it right. put everything on the table, repeat, everything on the table. >> one of my heroes there. welcome back. that was senator dick durbin of illinois who voted for the simpson/bowles plan and today he served on the commission and voted for the proposal. i'll say it again and again even though it includes significant entitlement cuts and he as a democrat doesn't like that. the up coming december 31st deadline has been called anything from that fiscal cliff to that fiscal slope. liberals are saying to that austerity bomb that progressive people don't like at paul. former senator allen simpson proposed a plan to get the united states financial house in order that some say was our best shot at solvency. senator simpson, it's always an honor. politics, i know you understand the irony of politics, it makes strange bedfellows. i want to try something by you. the president wants a deal. the president would obviously like to include something on revenues. the conservative may not want to go along with that. the be
in the time that even simpson-bowles is not the right answer now? >> there are certain things that have to be adapted, but what i get a kick out of is there was chuckling. dick durbin and tom coburn have been tremendously an integral part of this. they really are superb men, and bright and patriotic, and of course the stereotyping is out there, and that hurts everything. they say is durbin part of your plan? oh, god, not him. coburn is part of your plan? not him. they are not laughing now. this is like a stink bomb in a garden party. they do not like it. it is a curse, and the real estate guys and everybody on that list of people that gain tremendously from tax expenditures are out there with their fangs out right now. we knew this would come, but they never dreamed they would be talking about this plan, and now they are not just talking about it, they are talking about implementing parts of it, and they are in shock. you ain't seen nothing yet if you do not think the savagery in the next few weeks putting the heat on these guys in congress, from everyone of those people are going to lo
in washington among democrats and republicans is the president need to embrace simpson bowles. a great starting point. it allows him to not come out and put cuts on table, which i don't think he wants to do. i think some democrats, too, come out, like schumer and said i don't want you raising taxes on people under $1 million. we know it hurts his constituency. the they said raising taxes in a recession or down economy is not the good thing to do a year ago, it's not good to do now either. >> dana: bob, if you are in a position of leadership at the white house, do you think it's smart for president obama to lay out a plan like simpson-bowles or call it something else if he wants to and because he knows he can't get a tax increase at the level he is talking about through the house and maybe not even the senate, shouldn't he just then ask for something that bane could deliver? >> bob: first of all, let's -- the fiscal cliff sounds like a cartoon character. i don't think we should worry about it. there will not be a solution by december 31. pass it to the next congress. new congress. >> kimberly: h
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 611 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)